From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Jun 10 22:14:14 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id WAA01180 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 1995 22:14:14 -0700 Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.34]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id WAA01173 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 1995 22:13:59 -0700 Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.6.9/8.6.9) id PAA30145; Sun, 11 Jun 1995 15:07:27 +1000 Date: Sun, 11 Jun 1995 15:07:27 +1000 From: Bruce Evans Message-Id: <199506110507.PAA30145@godzilla.zeta.org.au> To: bakul@netcom.com, sef@kithrup.com Subject: Re: Slight flame from Linux user Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, leisner@sdsp.mc.xerox.com, nate@trout.sri.mt.net, terry@cs.weber.edu Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk >> Yeah, it's smaller, and, yeah, it compiles faster. And, yeah, it generates >> worse code. And, yeah, it's got a lint version which would be useful -- but >> I won't touch it. My compiler is much smaller, compiles much faster, and generates only slightly worse code -- but I won't touch it :-). I ran a stupid benchmark: --- + size /usr/bde/libexec/i386/bcc/cc1 /usr/bde/lib/gcc-lib/i386-freebsd/2.6.2/cc1 /usr/bde/bin/rcc text data bss dec hex 86016 4096 36380 126492 1ee1c /usr/bde/libexec/i386/bcc/cc1 1048576 20480 67992 1137048 115998 /usr/bde/lib/gcc-lib/i386-freebsd/2.6.2/cc1 307200 28672 23400 359272 57b68 /usr/bde/bin/rcc + time /usr/bde/libexec/i386/bcc/cc1 -3 z.c 4.29 real 3.88 user 0.22 sys + wc z.s 65553 131102 786579 z.s + time /usr/bde/lib/gcc-lib/i386-freebsd/2.6.2/cc1 -quiet z.c -o z.s 25.69 real 24.59 user 0.42 sys + wc z.s 32785 65562 393424 z.s + time /usr/bde/bin/rcc -target=x86-dos z.c 26.94 real 12.51 user 1.27 sys + wc z.s 32795 131124 622874 z.s --- [z.c is essentially 32768 lines `i=1;' where `i' is auto int. rcc is the main stage of lcc. It must be doing something strange for the user+sys times not to add up to nearly the real time and bad buffering for the system time to be so large.] >Can't speak for WC and others but I believe the present >copyright allows them distributing lcc. See below. I also >... >It is a fine compiler (adding instructional sounds like a put >down to me). It is not a replacement for gcc if you are using >gcc's extensions. For *BSD at the very least we need support >for long long which some of us are in the process of adding. We also need support for asm, inline, -fpic, a standard assembler, ... >He wrote back (among other things) > including lcc without modification in another distribution is OK. This doesn't help. You have to modify it to support long long... Bruce